Dear KC Sir Gerald Watt, KCN:
Notwithstanding your labeling me some years ago over the radio as being “vainglorious”, I always admit my error whenever my opinion is sufficiently shown to be wrong. In the words of the ancient Romans: “erratus est humanum” – to err is human. And, I am only a human.
But, respectfully, you have missed the two points which I made in my letter. Let’s forget the divisive politics for the time being, and concentrate on the interpretation of the express wording firstly of section 80(1)(a) of our Constitution which, incidentally, you made no mention of in your recently published article; and secondly, of the opening words of section 2 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act.
Section 80(1) of our Constitution makes it abundantly clear that in the exercise of his functions, the Governor-General shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or a Minister acting under the general authority of Cabinet, “except . . . in cases where by this Constitution or any other law he is required to act – (a) in his discretion; (b) . . . (c) . . .”
Does that section not expressly speak to the Governor-General being able to exercise his discretion where the Constitution or legislation specifically requires him to so act? How then can “convention” be called upon to interpret these clear and unambiguous words? Unlike the United Kingdom which has never had a written constitution and is therefor governed by conventions developed over the centuries, such conventions are only used here for guidance where there is uncertainty in our constitutional provisions or a deafening silence in respect of certain executive matters.
The second question which arises is this: How should the opening words of section 2 of the Commission of Inquiry Act be interpreted: “It shall be lawful for the Governor-General whenever he shall deem it advisable, to issue a commission . . . into any matter in which an inquiry would, in the opinion of the Governor-General, be for the public welfare. . .” Should these words not be interpreted as giving the Governor- General a discretion to act (or not act), and therefore fall within one of the exceptions to his acting on the advice of Ministers of Government, specifically created by section 80(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the Constitution?
Ofcourse, I accept that in acting in his discretion, the Governor-General is free to consult and seek advice; but in the final analysis the decision (to act or not to act) will be his. And the public would be so advised.
This issue is definitely one of public importance and in the public interest. In light therefor of the differing opinions, would you in your dual authoritative capacity of King’s Counsel and Speaker of the House of Representatives recommend to the Hon. Attorney General that he file an application seeking clarification by way of a determination/decision from the Court of Appeal, under the provisions of The Attorney General’s Reference (Constitutional Questions) Act, 2009 (No. 10 of 2009)?
Finally and incidentally, as Attorney General I never advised the then Governor-General to remove or try to remove you from your then position as Chairman of ABEC. I can boldly state that I was against that Cabinet decision, opposed the taking of that decision, and took no part in the entire process. Perhaps it’s high time that you move on from that bitterness that you continue to harbour since 2009.
For the reasons explained above, I am unable to admit an “error” on my part, and I will therefor not retract my opinion. Let our Court of Appeal decide!
Sincerely,
Justin L. Simon, KC
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
This man flew all the way to England to stand before white-wigged curly haired lords just to hear that:
“the claimants have NO REALISTIC PROSPECT OF SUCCEEDING in their claim under section 9(1) of the Constitution so that the Court of Appeal was correct to strike out that claim. The Board will therefore humbly advise Her Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed.”
Which ever law school he graduated from might want to take back that degree or distance itself from him.
Justin “NEVER READY” Simon. Buy 2 Ever Ready battery give him please.
Perhaps he was hoping to emerge as some Messianic figure for BPM. Hoping for some landmark ruling in his favour to go down in the anals of history. Now history will record this EMBARASSMENT he endured after an 8 hour flight to England. What a legacy to leave behind!!
“…NO REALISTIC PROSPECT OF SUCCEEDING …”
imagine hearing that in a deep British accent……Jussy will never forget those words as long as he lives. He can leave instructions to put it on his tombstone:
“…NO REALISTIC PROSPECT OF SUCCEEDING ….” ouch! blow to de EGO.
8 hour flight back to Antigua….biting, stinging, emotional plane ride back to reality.
“…NO REALISTIC PROSPECT OF SUCCEEDING …”
Anyone still wonders why KC Simon took the Barbuda Council’s claim that they have the right to Land of Barbuda ALL the Way to the Privy Council Lost the case and still have the BPM holding on to the myth. Why didn’t he officially call them up to accept he was wrong?
And I ask again. Look at KC Simon’s record as an AG. How come he lost so many cases and almost bankrupted the Treasury in legal costs awarded to the defendants? One of the defendants was Sir Gerald Watt KC, who was awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars. KC Simon, even Charles Tabor, an ally of yours, is not with you on your interpretation of this section of the law. And really even a lay person would not want the GG to have such powers in an independent State, where the post of GG is only for Ceremonial purposes. The Governor General was able to do that in the British Virgin Island, Turks and Caicos, because they are not fully independent. They answer to the Lawmakers in Brittain. So, the constitution was put aside because of the rampant wave of corruption by the politicians. Antigua and Barbuda doesn’t fall in that league.
FTS, I just refer back to ANR article on the Cloned Dog in the halls of Cabinet. Please, why didn’t you post a comment?
Do you still have the poopoo-scooper at your home?
Well said. Let’s stick to the letter of the law and move on from the foolishness. ABEC doesn’t belong to any one man. He is in a better position now.
@Hmmmmm you sound uptight and stressed. Maybe take a break from the fight. You come across as an anger child. Who is paying you? Find somthing better to do with your time. Nothing you say will change the minds of right thinking Antiguans.
AN INQUIRY IS NEEDED TO EXPOSE THE CORUPTION IN GOVERNMENT.
@Born Antiguan
You ever heard the radio interview of Wilmoth Daniel mocking Justin Simon winning rate? How many cases he won as AG? If you only heard how Daniel (a UPP member) thrashed the UPP-appointed AG. Daniel was basically shaming him for his “winning” streak lol lol lol
@From the Sideline Don’t you get tired of beating up on other people? Deal with the problems at hand. You’ve become quite boring.
I agree with Mr. Simon. Why do we have a written Constitution if the words recorded cannot be used as a guide for governments to resolve difficulties. What would happen if the GG initiated the process to begin a Commission of Inquiry? The Hon. GB would take him to court? Relinquish him of his position? What does the PM and his government have to hide in calling the commission. Ah ‘fraid dem ‘fraid fu arwe fin out wah gwarn. 😒
You’re definitely a fool- honestly what corruption can be found in this?… foolish you actually believe money(4billion dollars) came on the plane….
It’s like a husband wrongfully accused his wife of cheating
Agree 100%
I would think right thinking people can address the substance. Gerald call them out they responded to his call what does Barbuda Land and the decision has to do with this matter.
It would appear that when we find ourselves short on the facts we settle to personal and vicious acts on people.
If you want to say KC Simon position on the constitution and the Commission of inquiry Act Cap 91 is flawed or foolish then present your points to refute Simon’s argument.
What does it profit to attact personally? is it because you cannot refute his points so that is what we settle on personality assassination.
Shame! Shame! We would have love to hear your constitutional interpretation on the matter and not your personal vexatious attacts.
Present your position, give us the benefit of your intellectual mind at work.
CREDIBILITY is the capacity for being believed; the quality that renders something worthy of belief; believability.
Barbuda……..
Boring comments. Has no relations to the matter at hand. Hmmmmm, used your intellect to counter Mr Simon case or forever hold your personal begrudging to yourself.
Sorry, comments not fit for this issue. 0+0=
Sorry Rowan, you won’t find a speck of intellect in Hmmmmm. He is an educated dunce. If labor give him shit for nyam, he will lick his fingers and say, ahhhh, Yum Yum
@Rowan Benjamin
even the little children in PRIMARY school know that Antigua & Barbuda is a UNITARY STATE!! You think you need to go law school to figure that out???
Btw what was the overall total $$$ spent for the 4 dummies to travel so far??? The government side appeared VIRTUALLY. Trevor Walker reveal the final figure $$$ to the public yet?
I am staying out of the battle of words between the KCs. However, the Constitution is pellucidly clear (as Sir Lester would say) at section 80 (1) where it states that the Governor General in the exercise of his functions SHALL consult the Cabinet. The Constitution goes on to provide exceptions where the Governor can act according to his discretion. Confusingly and strangely, however, the Constitution declares that these exceptions can arise as a result of provisions of the Constitution itself (which is legally permissible) or any other law. How can any other law contain provisions that are inconsistent with the Constitution? The Constitution is the Supreme Law. That is the question that the KCs need to consider. Section 1 of the Commission of Inquiry Act which states that it is lawful for the Governor General to commission an inquiry cannot be interpreted as a discretion given to the Governor General. If that is the case, then section 1 of the Commission of Inquiry Act is inconsistent with section 80 (1) of the Constitution. The KCs need to ponder that.
Charles Tabor do you really think the people who support the UPP blindly will ever accept your reading and interpretation of the law and the constitution?
You are lucky based on your affiliation with the party that they have not lynched you as yet on this medium.
But if you continue, they may do so after all.
@Sir Charles Tabor
The people is the Supreme Law not the constitution. All levels of the court should have Trials by Jury so that the people can maintain their supremacy.
The constitution is not written in plain English, it is written in legalese. Hence the reason it must be interpreted by the Privy Council from time to time.
There are only two laws in Antigua and Barbuda. The constitution is one, what is the other one?
England has a written constitution, however it is in two documents not one as traditional.
1 The Magna Carta 1215
2 The British Bill of Rights 1689
I can read and stand over the above mentioned.
ONLY THE GG CAN CALL A ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY. NO CABINET CAN OR PARLIAMENT CAN DO THAT.
THE GG HAS A GOVERNMENT, TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE SOVERIGN WITH PEACE, GOODWILL, AND GOOD GOVERNANCE…
GOD SAVE THE KING.
I am still wondering, why after the back and forth and different legal opinions, Why to date no one has said on what authority did the for GG Carlisle unilaterally called the medical benefits inquiry, when Lester,Gaston, Robin,Molwin and rest of the gang objected back then?
You like to believe in your own lies. Keep it up. No matter how we present you with the evidence still you will insist.
*where the Governor General can act according to his discretion
hey Charlie how tings? miss being the court Registrar? U safe boss?
I do hope Sir Gerald can find peace that passeth all understanding before he kicks the bucket. He is too old to be fighting these types of battles. Take care of your mental health. Prepare to meet thy maker, KC.
The thing is, Yes we have the letter of the Law, but also have the Spirit of the Law. And sometimes judges do not only look at the letter of the law, but also at the spirit of the law.
This is the Biblical interpretation of the Spirit of the Law:
“The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them,4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery.5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”
When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.
Jesus never said that the letter of the Law was wrong. But he exercised the Spirit of the Law.
Justin must learn not to just read the letter of the law; he must understand the Spirit of the Law. I really wonder what qualified him to have become a KC.
@My old sparring partner just doesn’t know when to lie low. Sideliner, you lost your case when you referred to The Spirit Of The Law. I am far from being a legal luminary and I guess you are not one either. Let the learned lawmen fight over the various interpretations of the COI Act. The heart of the matter is this: Is the Antigua /Nigerian fiasco coupled with the stranded Cameroonians, some of whom have tragically lost their lives at sea, a matter of public interest or not? Reference has been made to Carlise GG in a previous case taking unitary action, again I leave his action then to be debated among legal luminaries. The point on hand is what concerns us all. Is it a matter of public interest and should a COI be called in the interest of the public to investigate the circumstances of what triggered this sorry episode ? Forget the politics and give an honest answer.
I used to have great respect for Gerald Watt but he has become just another hapless lakey of the ABLP after ditching the UPP. I suppose his bank account has benefitted.
that she was appalled that he said ” to hell with the constitution.”
To bring shame to the Walter’s family…
So nobody is to investigate a sitting government if there is a suspicion of wrong doing. All this back and forth , if there is nothing to hide ,call an inquiry and let the matter be solved through investigation.
@Sir Charles Tabor
The people is the Supreme Law not the constitution. All levels of the court should have Trials by Jury so that the people can maintain their supremacy.
The constitution is not written in plain English, it is written in legalese. Hence the reason it must be interpreted by the Privy Council from time to time.
There are only two laws in Antigua and Barbuda. The constitution is one, what is the other one?
England has a written constitution, however it is in two documents not one as traditional.
1 The Magna Carta 1215
2 The British Bill of Rights 1689
I can read and stand over the above mentioned.
ONLY THE GG CAN CALL A ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY. NO CABINET CAN OR PARLIAMENT CAN DO THAT.
THE GG HAS A GOVERNMENT, TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE SOVERIGN WITH PEACE, GOODWILL, AND GOOD GOVERNANCE…
GOD SAVE THE KING.
Correction. The UK does not have a written constituon. It is been debated at this time whether there should be one.
ALP and Gaston Browne have a lot to hide. Don’t fall for his crazed remarks about being the “cleanest ” politician in the region. If you are so “clean” Gaston Browne, support the inquiry. Where are all the audited reports of the government’s finances, to include the Statutory boards required by law? What of the infamous NAMCO? If we are to take your association with now known criminals, we can draw our own conclusions, that a man is known by the company he keeps.
Again, Carlisle did what we are now debating proving that the GG does have the power. Don’t think Lester Bird would have sat by and did nothing. So spin you lies and twisted utterances for the Labourites, we rational thinking patriots know better.
Agree 100%
Sir Gerald has a brilliant mind as they say as brilliant as a lawyer and at his age it’s indeed a blessing to serve our great country and with God’s blessing may out live many that criticizes his age outliving them in this beautiful thing we call life so be mindful and be watchful of our expressions
Comments are closed.